The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Point of View
April 17, 2010

The April 16 TEA Party rallies certainly got our attention, but have they gotten enough scrutiny? They certainly merit it.

From the start, it is clear to many of us, no matter what our politics are, that a lot of deep, systemic problems plague the present and threaten our common future. To question the TEA movement is not to argue that the TEA rallies are much about nothing. And there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of those who attended the recent TEA rallies deeply love our country. That we have in common.

However, on a fundamental level, it seems abundantly clear that they do not hold equal love for the emerging new Americans. Indeed, underneath all their stated grievances, what really appears to animate them is a drive to protest the rise of the many kinds of new Americans, citizens who are exerting themselves into the sunshine of power and respectability. Starting, of course, with our president, and winding down to people like me, and perhaps you.

Putting that aside for the moment, even taking them on their own grounds finds that they just don’t make much sense:

First, arguing that federal income taxes are personally hurting the majority of fellow Americans, including these attendees, makes no sense at present! Especially, given that an unprecedented 47 percent of all Americans in 2009 paid no net federal income taxes. To be sure, that will not endure. We will all, in short time, have to give up something to get out of our growing deficit. It is inevitable. Yet when it happens, one truly wonders if the TEA folks will still be out protesting when the GOP, following its proven tradition, once again legislates on behalf of privileged fellow Americans, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, so they can pay lower rates of taxes, such as at the capital gains rate of 15% flat, as they have been doing for years now?

Which brings up the second point: where was their anger and their protest when first Reagan, and then the Bushes ballooned the federal debt each and every year they served, which was twenty of the past thirty years? Most of these TEA protestors certainly were old enough at the time to speak out and to rally; so where were they? Why no TEA rallies while these three Republican presidents created the overwhelming bulk of today’s staggering $12.9 trillion overall debt? And it is pure blarney to argue that Reagan and the Bushes submitted modest budgets only to have Democratic congresses lard them over.

Moreover, why today do the TEA folk singularly blame President Obama for the 2009 annual federal deficit of $1.4 trillion when at least $1 trillion of that spending was authorized and passed on by the outgoing Dubya administration? The problem, for sure, is Obama’s now, but not all the blame.

And third, why so much silence from the TEA party on so many other fronts? For example, in response to reports, which are emerging daily, telling us that the very same Republican leadership, which is egging on these protests, is simultaneously holding behind-closed-doors negotiations with the very same financial services industry that bears most responsibility for blowing up the economy and bringing on the current Great Recession. And what is being negotiated? A trade off consisting of these politicians working to weaken or scuttle effective regulation of critical financial services, such as banking and credit. And for what? Very likely, a redirection towards the GOP of upcoming campaign contributions by these firms. We should expect a howl, on just this one front alone, from the TEA protestors, but can we?

All in all, how can anyone take the particular protests of these folks seriously? Think of their most peculiar proven record of going into effective public hibernation whenever the Republican Party regains power in Washington (And No! Muttering over the morning coffee or in List/Serves doesn’t cut it, folks!). So why should the rest of us count on them to continue to protest if the Republicans once again regain power and responsibility over the debt and the tax code? While keeping a critical eye on whose minding the government should always be ongoing, it is most critical to bear down on one’s own party when it is in power. Democrats do a lousy job of this, Republicans even worse, and the TEA folk? They take a long four to eight year lunch.

Based on the incoherence and incongruity of the TEA platform, are we just witnessing the action of sheep, following the directions of hidden wolves? First being made ready for the shearing, and then for the slaughter?

----------------------------
Larry Hernandez

Point of View
Nothing sinister going on in Tea Party movement
Ruby Simpson
Created: 05/06/2010 06:00:52 PM PDT

The Point of View written by Larry Hernandez ("Tea Party movement's `platform' points need scrutiny," April 30) deserves a response.

Mr. Hernandez states that that Tea Partiers clearly " do not hold equal love for the emerging new Americans" who are "exerting themselves into the sunshine of power and respectability."

Who are these new Americans? It sounds to me like Mr. Hernandez is calling Tea Partiers racists, and implying that the movement is really about keeping minorities out of power. If Mr. Hernandez will attend a Tea Party, he will see plenty of minorities standing shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us protesting big spending and the relentless surge of government into every facet of our lives.

The second argument Mr. Hernandez makes is that Tea Partiers cannot really be protesting high taxes because 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes, which means that we will all have to " give up something to get out of our growing deficit."

The something we should give up, Tea Partiers would respond, is the massive and unprecedented growth of government and its corresponding big spending.

The comment he makes about the GOP and its "proven tradition" of legislating on behalf of privileged Americans like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, besides being untrue and such a tired old Democrat cliche (Mr. Hernandez fails to note a single instance) is actually hilarious. Warren Buffet is a leftist Democrat, while Bill Gates generally
declines to state his affiliation. Neither of them is a Republican. Neither is George Soros, by the way.

Mr. Hernandez then takes Tea Partiers to task for not arguing against prior years of ballooning deficits; he comments that $1trillion of debt was authorized and passed by the outgoing Bush administration.

True enough, but Democrats were in charge of both Houses of Congress, which by the way has constitutional spending authority. I can't speak for other Tea Partiers, but I can attest that I was furious when the stimulus bill was passed. I thought it would be a disaster and I was right.

Mr. Hernandez suggests that once the Republicans are returned to power the Tea Partiers will take a long vacation. Wrong-o, Mr. Hernandez. Read the papers. Sen. Bennett in Utah is having a dickens of a time with his re-election. He's a Republican big spender and the Tea Partiers are holding him to account. And then there's Charlie Crist of Florida. He was a Republican until Marco Rubio (one of those "new Americans," whose parents fled to Florida from Cuba) endangered Crist's Senate election bid. Crist has left the Republican Party and is running as an Independent while Rubio welcomes Tea Party support. Most Republicans and all Tea Partiers would say good riddance to Charlie Crist, another big spender.

Last of all, Mr. Hernandez suggests that Tea Partiers are sheep following "hidden wolves." What hidden wolves would those be?

The entire point of view intimates that Tea Partiers are some secret and dangerous group working in a darkened, smoke-filled back room. In fact, they are out in the open. There is nothing sinister going on here, Mr. Hernandez.

Come on over to the next Tea Party and give us some of that scrutiny you say we need. All you have to lose is your ignorance.

Ruby Simpson is a reader member of the Daily Bulletin editorial board. She lives in Upland.

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Reply to a Point of View
May 7, 2010

Ruby Simpson’s Point of View (“Nothing sinister gong on in Tea Party movement,” May 7) offered in response to my earlier Point of View (Tea Party movement’s ‘platform’ points need scrutiny,” April 30) richly calls for its own response in return.

First, concerning the racism charge allegedly pinned on the movement by me, I stand by what I said, which refers to evident preoccupation among many TEA rally participants with the prospect of a looming minority majority American demographic. I didn’t characterize this as ‘racist’ because I don’t think it necessarily is. Ms. Simpson ties to refute my alleged charge of racism by asserting that that there were “plenty of minorities standing shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us protesting ..”. Really? TEA rallies demographics alone cannot be used to refute charges of anti-minority sentiment. Not when news sources and reputable polling note that the TEA movement is overwhelming older and whiter than the surrounding population as a whole, be it across the nation or in California.

And need I now mention, which I purposefully did not in my original POV, the racially charged signage and vocalizations that has been evident in no-too-few TEA rallies? This has been documented as being repeated in different rallies across the nation, and over a lengthy period of time. So, isn’t it clear to assume that any effort by the organizers to stop it has either not materialized at all, or has been ineffectual?

Simpson’s other criticisms amount to a game of rhetorical dodge ball. She states: “The comments he makes about the GOP and ‘proven “tradition” of legislating on behalf of privileged Americans like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, besides being untrue and such a tired old Democrat cliché (Mr. Hernandez fails to note a single instance) is actually hilarious.” Where do I start? The two great tax cuts of the last thirty years that proved such a bonanza to the most privileged of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and the G.W. Bush cuts early in his first term, admittedly had the help of weak-willed, unprincipled Democrats all along the way. But ultimately, they were initiated by Republicans, passed largely on the vote of Republicans, and signed into law by Republicans. And Ms. Simpson, when the Bush tax cuts were enacted early in his first term, the Republicans, not the Democrats, controlled Congress.

As for refuting the return of the long four to eight year lunch by TEA partiers when the GOP returns to power, offering up the present agitation by the TEA party doesn’t cut it. If Simpson could show that first time young activists dominate the movement, then she would have strong grounds to argue its sudden emergence is the start of something new. But it isn’t anything like this. Certainly most all of the leaders, and the majority of the participants, quite possibly Simpson herself, are veteran proponents of anti-tax and other conservative or libertarian causes. Which is why their uncharacteristic muted response while Republicans were in power twenty of the past thirty years stands out. And all that she lists, from the problems of Senator Bennett of Utah to those of Governor Crist of Florida, which she rightfully attributes to TEA efforts, are happening now under what? A Democrat in the White House and a Democratic controlled Congress! It still remains to be seen if any of this would be occurring if the GOP controlled both. What is happening now does not disprove that the TEA movement isn’t a pro-GOP contrivance.

As for the closing shot, that there are no hidden wolves: what about Freedom Works and Dick Armey, the Koch brothers and Fox News with Glenn Beck? All have helped the movement all along by either funding the TEA movement, by offering organizational support, or have served as megaphones urging turnout at events. Locally, what about John and Ken of KFI? They are all there, behind the scenes, disavowing any influence, but pulling strings for their own agendas. While there is a lot of sweat equity from average folks involved, don’t pass this off as a wholly tin-cup, grass roots endeavor. It isn’t.

Larry Hernandez